Contain the damage done by the Supreme Court to campaign finance laws

The U.S. Supreme Court in January gutted the nation’s campaign finance laws by ruling that corporations and unions have a right to spend unlimited money on political campaigns.

That radical ruling offered just one consolation: It suggested tougher disclosure rules might be allowed.

Cindy Schultz/Times Union file photoU.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)Sen. Charles Schumer is stepping through that door today by offering a bill that would require union leaders and CEOs who bankroll ads to appear personally and take responsibility for the content, as politicians must do today in their own ads.

That is a sensible reform. If a coal company spends money to defeat a candidate pressing for mine safety, voters would know. If teachers unions spend money to defeat politicians pushing education reform, voters would know that, too.

Disclosure would encourage restraint. And forcing corporate and union leaders to take personal responsibility might discourage the sleazy distortions we’ve seen from anonymously funded groups.

Schumer’s bill also seeks to restore an outright ban on spending by certain classes of companies: those controlled by foreigners, those receiving federal TARP money and those with federal contracts. That’s reasonable. Political donations by foreign individuals are illegal today, so this would only apply the same principle to companies. And if a company is receiving federal funds, it should not be able to use that money on politics.

So far, Schumer and his counterpart in the House, U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, have found little Republican support, no doubt because the limited ban on corporate spending would work to Democrats’ advantage. To get a bill passed, it may have to focus on disclosure alone.

Republicans should at least support that. GOP leaders have resisted limits on donations for years by arguing that fuller disclosure was preferable. Time to see if they meant it.

Meanwhile, in Trenton, Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein has drafted a bill to require disclosure of donations to independent political groups. That was suggested earlier this year by the state’s Election Law Enforcement Commission, and is in keeping with the spirit of Schumer’s provisions on disclosure.

Let some sunshine in. Disclosure rules are no threat to free speech. And voters deserve that much, at least.